nostr_post_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the combined sign+publish operation and the cost ('Price: 21 sats'), which aren't obvious from the schema. However, it doesn't cover other important behaviors like error handling, response format, or network effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (two brief sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and method, while the second provides critical cost information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does the minimum viable job. It explains what the tool does and mentions the cost, but doesn't describe what happens after posting (success/failure responses, event ID return, etc.). Given the complexity of a paid Nostr operation, more behavioral context would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Post a kind 1 text note'), the resource ('to Nostr'), and the method ('sign + publish in one call'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'nostr_sign_event' (sign only) and 'nostr_publish_event' (publish only) by emphasizing the combined operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Post a kind 1 text note') and implies alternatives by mentioning the combined 'sign + publish' operation, suggesting separate tools exist for these functions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond what's inferred from siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.